Friday, October 26, 2012

NDP leads in Quebec, for now

A new poll was released yesterday by CROP via La Presse, indicating that the New Democrats are still in control of the situation in Quebec. But the poll also indicated that the NDP's dominance in the province could be threatened by a Justin Trudeau-led Liberal Party.

CROP has been out of the field federally for some time, their last poll on record being from April. Since then, the New Democrats dropped 13 points to 38% (they were at 51% in CROP's polling after Thomas Mulcair won the leadership). That still put them well ahead of the Bloc Québécois, which gained three points to reach 21%.

The Liberals were up five points to 20% and the Conservatives were up three to 16%, while the Greens had 5% support.

The New Democrats held a statistically significant lead province-wide, but also among francophones (42% to the Bloc's 26%) and in the Montreal region (38% to the Bloc's 22%). The Liberals held a lead among non-francophones, edging out the Tories with 45% to 31% support. That is actually a bit of a mark against the New Democrats, who have generally been in a race with the Liberals for the favour of this demographic. It puts the NDP in a difficult position on the island of Montreal.

Elsewhere, the Conservatives had the edge in Quebec City with 39% to the NDP's 32%, while the NDP edged out the Liberals and Bloc with 39% in the rest of Quebec. The two other parties were tied at 21% apiece.

The landscape changes dramatically when Justin Trudeau is added to the mix, however.

With him at the helm of the Liberal Party, the NDP falls to second with 30% to the Liberals' 36%. That represents a 16 points gain for Trudeau and an eight point drop for the NDP.

The Bloc drops two points to 19% and the Conservatives drop five to 11%, proportionately a larger share of their supporters than the NDP loses to the Liberals.

Trudeau would dominate among non-francophones with 62% to the Conservatives' 19%, and would have the edge in every region of Quebec: 36% to the NDP's 32% in Montreal, 42% to the Tories' 28% in Quebec City, and 34% to the NDP's 32% in the rest of Quebec.

But the New Democrats would still have the support of francophones, with 34% to the Trudeau Liberals' 30%. With Trudeau's high score among non-francophones, it seems that the Liberals would have most of their Montreal-area support concentrated in the West Island, giving the NDP the advantage in the francophone parts of the island and the out-lying suburbs.

The gains the Liberals make under Trudeau are generally uniform, at between 13 and 17 points in the different regions and among the two linguistic groups. The 28-point gain made in Quebec City, coming almost equally from both the NDP and the Tories, is a little counter-intuitive, however.

In terms of seats, the current voting intentions would award 56 seats to the New Democrats on the proposed boundaries of the 78-seat map for Quebec, while 13 would go to the Liberals, six to the Conservatives, and three to the Bloc Québécois.

With the Trudeau numbers, the New Democrats would still win a plurality of seats with 39. The Liberals would win 32, the Bloc four, and the Conservatives three. The NDP's edge is due primarily to the francophone suburbs around Montreal.

As I point out in my article for The Huffington Post Canada on this new poll, there is a silver lining for the New Democrats in these numbers. Despite falling behind the Liberals in voting intentions, Thomas Mulcair still tops the list on who is the best person to be Prime Minister with 29% to Justin Trudeau's 25%. This suggests that Mulcair is still seen as the more qualified person for the job, an advantage that could be absolutely vital in an election campaign.

But the Liberals have a lot of wiggle room. A result of 36% would be very impressive for the Liberals after having struggled in the province ever since the Gomery inquiry. But even a result of 25%, better than Stéphane Dion managed in 2008, would be a good rebound for the Liberals in Quebec. It seems quite likely that Justin Trudeau should be able to manage at least that.

58 comments:

No doubt? Please. This far from an election, there is every kind of doubt. Thus far, Justin Trudeau is largely a cypher. He can have projected on him all the good properties people want to associate with him, but most of his poor qualities have not yet received any meaningful amount of play. Whether such will emerge, and what impact they will have, are critical questions. Until they are answered, it's simply not possible to say that there is "no doubt" that Trudeau is a game changer. None of this is to deny that it is possible, but such certainty is unjustified.

It's also unjustified to put a lot of doubt on Trudeau. He has spent more years as an MP than his father did when he became PM. He's also much more familiar with the political stage than a lot of the NDP MPs currently are. If Mulcair is elected PM he will most certainly have to pick some young MPs from his Quebec caucus into his cabinet. In the case of Trudeau, he will have a lot of good choices from experienced people who has served in cabinet and government before. So which is better? A leader with a lot of amateurs at his foot or an amateur leader with a lot of experienced people around him to guide and assist him?

TB,To be fair, the young NDP MPs have come a long way since they got elected. There is so much time left until the next election that it's impossible start predicting results. Who knows, maybe Wild Rose will run federally and form a majority gov't. That's obviously an extreme example, but you know what I mean.

Maxime Bernier got a seat from majority Liberal support to majority Conservative support due to a CPC surge in Quebec in 2006. If the Liberals surge in Quebec, then there's no telling whether the voters there will move en masse to the Liberals again.

The CPC could regain a couple of seats by default in Quebec city due to a Liberal-NDP vote split in that area.

...I don't think Trudeau would be able to take all those seats from the NDP. Quebec will have more of a reason to vote for New Democrats in the next election because the MPs they voted in last time will actually be experience by then. I might be wrong though, maybe the "Orange Crush" won't even be remembered by people looking at this point in history.

The Quebec Liberals, CAQ, and the CPC are also against Quebec's language plan. Trudeau is a federalist, so it's no surprise that he's against it as well. At least he got the guts to be vocal about it, while the NDP has yet to say anything.

Didn't the same pre-election polls show Danielle Smith, Francois Legault, Tim Hudak etc soaring high, until the voters looked into the amount of substance they have.

I think the same could be a possibility for Justin Trudeau's Liberals. Do senior Liberals actually believe they could reduce the NDP to a third party with Trudeau as leader? Do these people think that Mulcair's NDP will be conceding without a fight?

Under Mulcair the NDP seems serious about governing Canada. This is a contrast to the more campy nature of the NDP in previous years, even during the Layton-era. The question for the next two years will be, whether the progressive/anti-Harper vote consolidate with Mulcair's NDP or Trudeau's Liberals.

One thing I do not understand is the supposed youth appeal of Trudeau. Is the media and Liberals claiming that a Trudeau leadership will boost voter turn out? Or are they saying that young people who typically vote for the NDP or Greens would shift their vote to the third party Liberals in the next election?

Anonomous comment of 11.34 repeats some of the same commentary heard in the press by referring to senior Liberals as if the leadership election is being decided by some elite. I was at the Dion convention and I can assure you that the decision was not made by any elite. It was made by some thousands of individual delegates. The same will be true for this election when an even larger number of Canadians will make their choice. Enough with this talk of the Liberal elite.

Young people don't typiccally vote for the NDP or greens. That might be the case for eastern Canada, but in the west, they usually vote Liberal. One of the two remaining Liberal seats in BC (Vancouver-Quadra) contains UBC, and is considered to be one of the safest Liberal seats. They even managed to hold onto this seat in the disasterous election of 1984. Calgary also managed to elect a liberal mayor in 2010 because of the youth vote.

The only non-CPC seat in Alberta is orange, and it's a university area as well. I think you're speaking a little over-broad when you make claims for the "west" here.

And mayors in Alberta have no party affiliation. It's possible Naheed Nenshi would be a Liberal candidate were he running federally, but it's definitely not a guarantee. Provincial and local candidates moving to federal politics in Alberta have a nasty habit of moving right in the hopes of, you know, actually getting elected.

Naheed Nenshi has not indicated he is a Liberal. His election certainly benefited from young people but, I think the three way race was a far larger determining factor.

Many young people out West vote for the NDP, Greens and Liberals. It has not been my experience that young people "usually vote Liberal". As for UBC being the determinant in Vancouver-Quadra staying red, obviously the University has an impact but, many factors come into play including; the NDP is not an acceptable option for the good free-enterprise loving people of Dunbar, Kerrisdale, Shaughnessey, Southlands and Kitsilano, immigration et cetera.

Actually, this isn't anti-NDP fantasies, the NDP is known widely to support the Sherbrooke declaration. This allows Quebec to ask the federal government to devolve powers to them little by little to deal with individual issues in the province. If this happens, it sets a bad precedence, because everytime a seperatist government gets elected, they could use this strategy and slowly push Quebec to sovereignty. Mulcair will certainly have to clarify his position on at least that.

Please people, if you are going to comment on the Sherbrooke Declaration please read it in its entirety as opposed to what they post on media websites. I have read it in its entirety and it is a simple declaration, there is no crazy talk of allowing Quebec to have all the powers that it wants, etc.... Also as for the 50% +1, the declaration merely says that it would basically not create an issue, militarily keep the province a part of Canada. Again, please read the declaration in its entirety. I wonder what all the fear mongers will say when the party releases its much anticipated Lethbridge declaration. In fact, I applaud the NDP for taking the initiative to view and respect each provinces' unique position in this country as opposed to attempting to force each province to meet some standard. Lastly, for all those who may want to suggest that the NDP might be separatist, why does it outline that perhaps Quebec can be much like Scotland or Wales is to the UK? That does not mean separation and that is outlined in the Sherbrooke Declaration.

By allowing a province to separate without negotiations and the subsequent constitutional amendment and agreement; the NDP demonstrates its disregard for the Canadian constitution and law. That is the implication of clause 6!

Don't confuse the subject by talking of Scotland or Wales~! Scotland is a country and joined Britain through treaty and negotiation-it possesses rights due to its formerly indepoendent and now joint status within the United Kingdom and through the treaty that created the 1707 Act of Union. Quebec was never a sovereign state nor does it posses joint status within Canada nor has it signed a treaty with Canada. It possesses its rights and powers through Canadian law! Quebec already has more powers than the Scottish Parliament!

The NDP is nothing but a soft-nationalist/ soft-feederalist party in Quebec. Not necessarily separation but, separation if it gets us elected Government in Ottawa!

Reading your response Will Bowser tells me that you do not understand the Sherbrooke Declaration. As for Scotland and Wales the NDP use it as an example that alternative choices are available. In other words enter constitutional talks to open the country to other possible solutions to resolving the Quebec issue. There is no disregard for Canadian/constitutional law by simply stating that a government will not invoke war measures to keep a province as a part of the country. It's absurd to even think that by allowing Quebec to separate without imposing war measures would be a disregard to Canadian constitution and law.

Also, this is all still based on hypothetical situations (ie the actual separation of Quebec or that the NDP actually somehow vote into law their Sherbrooke Declaration). To be honest it is beginning to sound more and more like the old fashioned "NDP is communist" or "NDP is like the socialist poor european countries" excuses not to vote for a party other than the Conservative or Liberal parties.

Please do not put words in my mouth or at least have the courtesy to cite me properly. I made no mention of the War Measures Act (renamed roughly a decade ago). You would also be pleased to note that S6 of the Sherbrooke Declaration also makes no mention of the WMA.

I do understand the Sherbrooke Declaration for what it is; a poorly written radical policy that if executed endangers Canada and foolhardily gives away Canadians' rights and ability to enter into consultation or negotiation with one another.

In the first place the NDP shows its disregard and intention to violate and ignore the Canadian Constitution and law by stating in clause 6 of the Sherbrooke Declaration: " The NDP recognizes Quebec's right to self-determination which implies the right of the people of Quebec to decide freely its own political and constitutional future". As most Canadians know and the Supreme Court affirmed negotiation and constitutional amendment is the only legal means to effect separation. Therefore, stating an NDP Government would recognise a 50%+1 referendum outcome is in violation of the Constitution and Canadian law. As the following quote in S.6 from the SCOC demonstrates the process is political not merely electoral-yet the NDP ignores the ruling and common sense by placing the emphasis on a province's right to self-determination.

S.6 Is a manifesto by which Quebec may decide its future unilaterally from Canada. Such a process violates constitutional precedent, jurisprudence and the Clarity Act. Such a stance without consultation with other provinces is tantamount to an act of bad faith and such a policy clearly places the interests of Quebec ahead of Canada-such a position is unacceptable for any party wishing to form a national government!

Furthermore S.6 abrogates Canada's duties and obligations by allowing Quebec to unilaterally write the referendum question without consultation then further downgrades and disregards the duties of the Canadian Government by stating it would determine its own process "in the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling and international law". To abrogate a country's rights and obligations by delegating authority to the Government of Quebec and International law is an irrational act. Neither governments nor individuals voluntarily give up power without a trade-off or a fight, and it demonstrates how ill-prepared and poorly trained any NDP government would be.

The examples of Scotland and Wales are not legitimate choices for Quebec. In the first place the UK is a unitary state Canada is not. Any change in Quebec's constitutional status would require significant agreement if not unanimity among the Provinces and Parliament. Scotland holds its status via Acts of Parliament and treaty. Such options are not available to Quebec at this time. Wales is wholly governed under Acts of Parliament. If we use Wales as an example Quebec would be subservient to Parliament and would have only those powers delegated to them by Parliament. This clearly is either an ill-thought out policy option or demonstrates the lack of constitutional knowledge inhabiting the NDP.

To say the Sherbrooke Declaration is only hypothetical is fine but, the implication is the Sherbrooke Declaration will never be implemented or acted upon. Such a rationale leaves one to question why the NDP would purposefully break party policy and campaign promises? Can any policy or statement from the NDP be trusted? Do they mean what they say or decide in convention or are they simply a grouping of carpet-baggers with the intent of being all things to all people to achieve power?

I think it is up to you to re-read NDP policy and think critically and analytically about the outcomes such policies would create. Most loyal Canadians upon analysis will conclude the Sherbrooke Declaration is bad for Canada.

Just because you think the Sherbrooke Declaration is bad based on your interpretation of one section found within it proves to me that your analysis and comprehension of it is in itself flawed. You clearly did not read the Declaration in its entirety as your only arguments are founded in the section 6 of the policy.

You try to argue that Quebec is not like Scotland and Wales and yet it is in its own way very similar. Quebec and its people were not forced through war to become a part of Canada? Did the on-going war between Britain and France so many years ago not precipitate Quebec becoming an integral part of Canada? Or did you merely rather choose to ignore Canada's history?

Quebec is considered a nation. So to just randomly say that it cannot relate somehow to Scotland or Wales is just incorrect. I grant you the situations may not be 100% the same, but the idea of Quebec's predicament is very much similar.

And uhm, quit with the Constitutional jargon... there are plenty of Constitutions around the world that fail. How do you think independent states are created? Constitutions can ultimately lead to the destruction of countries. I never ever quote the Supreme Court on the matter of the Constitutionality of Quebec separating or being included within the Constitution of 1982, because even it admits that the Supreme Court is not necessarily the place to decide certain topics. It stated that in regards to some of the questions asked by the Chretien Liberals pertaining to separation.

You say that the NDP is ill-prepared because it chooses to use non-violence in a situation where Quebec would like to separate. I disagree. I believe that is what makes the NDP even more capable of governing. Rather than offering a war, it offers the idea of negotiation and peace. Hhhhmmm, I don't know about you, but I would much prefer peace over war any day.

It also offers for Quebec to make its own decisions as a nation. Who is to say the people of Quebec will not ultimately decide to rejoin Canada in new Constitutional talks. A recent poll demonstrated that the vast majority of the people in Quebec want their provincial government to approach the federal government with regards to re-negotiating the Constitution. All the Sherbrooke Declaration (read in its entirety) offers Quebec is just that, to seek new means to have Quebec join Canada and if all those efforts fail and if Quebec still wants to separate, allow it to do so without forcing it to stay in the country. Your right it makes no reference to war, but clearly send the message that whatever happens it will do everything possible to allow things to proceed peacefully

Lastly, the main message you and everybody who reads the Declaration in its entirety is the message the NDP repeats continuously throughout the policy including Section 6 and that is:

"Quebec's place in Canada"

Even in Section 6 the NDP states "The NDP hopes for and will promote a united Canada" (What the heck does that mean? According to you that means the NDP is separatist?) "But the right to self-determination can also be exercised within Canada." (What's that again? The NDP is separatist?) "According to its values, the NDP also rejects use of - or threat of - force against Quebec at any stage." These are quotes from the relative small section 6, the one you claim to make the NDP sound like separatists!

As it goes on to say about polarizing the debate, your attempts to misinform the readers by throwing out your opinion of one section of a Declaration that contains seven proves that you are willing to polarize people over what the NDP are really attempting to do.

What is this about violence? I have never used the word or War Measures Act or any bellicose terms in my previous posts! In any case the Sherbrooke Declaration far from offering negotiations rebukes Canadian law and Constitution by not recognising the need for negotiation! Instead it sets the stage for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence! I Fail to see how you can not recognise this as the full ramification of a 50%+1 vote on a question left entirely to the Government of Quebec.

In any case, the current constitutional, legal and political structures in Canada are based upon co-operation and agreement through negotiation and the rule of law. The NDP disregards them through S.6.

S. 6 is badly flawed. No matter how well intended the other 6 sections may be they are dwarfed by this potential ill-thought-out time bomb. In total I see little of use within the Sherbrooke Declaration it is mainly platitudes and good intentions- short of concrete policy proposals.

Asymmetrical federalism has been practiced since 1759 so the NDP re-stating this fact is hardly contentious much less visionary. Opting out with compensation dates from the 50's or 60's- these rehashed ideas are the nucleus of NDP policy to renew federalism?

What I do see however is discrimination. Asserting French is the language of work in Quebec is nothing short of prejudice. Why should non-francophones have any less right to speak in the language of their choosing? Nobody disagrees that Quebec should pursue different approaches toward linguistic and cultural goals, that Quebec has an obligation to protect French. To do so while limiting the rights of others is discriminatory and prejudiced and ultimately devalues the French language.

Yes the British defeated the French at the battle of Quebec. Please don't delude yourself and think that in the interceding 253 years the Quebecois have been left without choices.

Quebecois made their choice multiple times. Don't blame Gen. Wolfe for Quebec's constitutional status. Twice Quebecois saved British North America! They could have easily joined America. Then there were the multiple rounds of constitutional negotiations in the 19th and 20th centuries and let us not forget two referenda! Every time Quebec has chosen Canada.

I said the NDP was ill-prepared because they forego Canada's rights and privileges to the Quebec government and that most ephemeral of institutions, international law. There are no hard and fast rules of state recognition in international law. Some countries are recognised others are not it depends on actors' preferences. I would be cautious of invoking such doctrines as it may encourage great powers to exercise their right in interpreting international law. So yes, the NDP are ill-prepared for governing much less foreign affairs.

I doubt the Sherbrooke Declaration contains within it the nucleus of constitutional agreement. But what makes it bad policy is that it gives Quebec a host of promises without the concordant agreement or consultation needed to engineer success. It creates false hope and unrealistic expectations. The NDP may well find the Sherbrooke Declaration is far better at alienating English Canada than courting Quebec.

Ultimately the NDP is a separatist party because it would allow the rights of Canada to be exercised unilaterally by Quebec and international law. It would place the interests of Quebec above the interests of Canada by rejecting Canadian law and constitutional convention through recognition of a 50%+1 vote. Those are not Canadian policies they are Quebec policies.

Anonomous comment of 11.34 repeats some of the same commentary heard in the press by referring to senior Liberals as if the leadership election is being decided by some elite. I was at the Dion convention and I can assure you that the decision was not made by any elite. It was made by some thousands of individual delegates. The same will be true for this election when an even larger number of Canadians will make their choice. Enough with this talk of the Liberal elite.

The delegates ARE the Liberal Party elite. Delegated conventions basically tell the wider party membership that their opinions just don't matter before the privileged few that get to populate the floor and the backrooms.

Thankfully the LPC have embraced one-member-one-vote (and then some), unlike their archaic cousins in the Ontario Liberals ...

That's so true. The CPC seems like dead logs compared to the LPC. The Liberals are certainly the most open and member driven party in Canada nowdays. I suggest everyone familiarize themselves with them by going to Liberal.ca before you tell untruths about them.

Yeah, there's so many falsehoods circulating about the Liberal party nowdays. You would certainly wonder why these people won't be intelligent and find out more about them instead of going to a corner of the web and post untruthful attacks on them.

You've both described the formal policy-making procedure, but that's not how it works in practice. Otherwise, Liberal policies would be more genuinely liberal than they are. For example, party members have generally favoured strong environmental policies but in power the party has never implemented them. Furthermore, Liberal policy conventions are not wide-open affairs... policy proposals exist within fairly narrow limits. Earlier this year 77% of Liberals at the convention agreed that marijuana should be legalised... is it official policy of the party? No, because Bob Rae felt uncomfortable with the idea. Also, the leader of the party has the right to veto resolutions of the members.

Yet again, it is an official policy of the party, but it isn't in the platform as of yet, I'll concede that.

It might have to do with the fact that the party still pushes the 2011 platform, since there is no permanent leader right now. It would be "rude" from Bob Rae if he were to change the platform right before the new leader arrives.

Justin is an empty drum, a substitute drama teacher with good hair. Put him on the stage with Mulcair and Harper with nothing more to say than "I love Canada" and it will be clear, the Liberals sent a boy to do a man's job.

The population in Canada is dividing up 40% reactionary and 60% progressive. The Liberals have to choose a side and stick with it or they will become road kill in the centre of the highway. This "we don't care if the solution is from the left or the right so long as it works" is just too painfully naive for words.

You are wrong. You don't know Mr. Trudeau. He's not a substitute drama teacher. He's not someone with a simple belief of "I love Canada", if he is, then he would not have ran for the leadership. He has a lot of good abilities, I suggest you familiarize yourself with them before being swayed by lies. I find it very surprising that you would be so rude to someone who you don't know, and I believe that your opinion simply aren't those of the mainstream. Most Canadians don't vote based on ideology, but based on if someone has the best solution for the country. People are not set in stone. Most Canadians don't care if the solution is from the left or the right. 40% of Canadians are not reactionary. If they are, then they would not have voted Liberal or NDP from 1993-2011. 60% of Canadians are not progressive. If they are, they wouldn't have voted PC from 1984-1993.

Unlike the NDP that probably will never form the government in our lifetime, the Liberals have done quite well in preserving their voter base. The NDP looks more and more like a one time wonder with its Quebec wave that won't be repeated again.

I have to agree. Most Canadians are pragmatic, non-partisan people. Politics and goverment would be way too boring if everyone is forever stuck with a single belief. Not to mention election campaigns will never work if everyone's 40% reactionary and 60% progressive.

In almost every country, voters are generally pragmatic and do not vote based on ideology. But it is highly important for a party to have its own ideology, whether conservatism, liberalism, social democracy, or green politics.

I didn't realize going from 40% in 1997 to 18% in 2011 was doing quite well in preserving their voter base Anon 12:32. Tell us more about how a vast reduction in both vote share and total ballots cast shows the strength of Liberal vote retention.

Anon 12:13, remember how the Mulroney PCs couldn't get past 40% of the vote, and that the rest of the vote split towards parties on the left of the PCs? That's what we're talking about here, and those voters amazingly lean to the progressive side of the political spectrum.

Actually, politics across the western world is polarizing rapidly between the 1% plutocrats and the rest, leaving very little political space in the centre. Familiarize yourself with the John Ibbitson critique of the Liberal party situation. He is refecting the opinions of political scientists and pollsters, not knee jerk partisans.

Though I must say most people will start bickering when I state this fact:

Justin Trudeau has not offered anything to the people who watch or read up on politics that could ultimately change or sway how people will vote in the next election.

Now I have to say that I am referring to non-Liberal supporters. As an NDP supporter of course I will be aware of the policies that an NDP leadership hopeful will offer, and I heard them in the media. But so far as an outsider looking in, Justin Trudeau has yet to offer a single thing, let alone policy view(s). And sure I do know it is early, but I also think it is far to early to be gauging Trudeau as a possible leader as he has not even been chosen as a leader. Even if he was, most people who answered this poll would have either been former Liberal supporters or current Liberal supporters. Which in my opinion is what ultimately gave the appearance that the Liberals are having a surge under the perceived popularity of Justin Trudeau. It's the beginning of the "honeymoon" sort of speak and it will most definitely decline at some point. That is something that Liberal supporters should be mindful of.

Don't get me wrong, Trudeau may do well, but I think everybody needs to step back and wait until he has won the leadership race before forming conclusions from this poll or any other poll in the next couple of months.

Lastly, what is this "Vote for Justin Trudeau" advertisement on your page from yahoo.com awards? He is being put up against actors for best Prime Minister, is this a joke? A poll like that does not bode well for Trudeau, especially when you read the majority of comments. (Delete this last comment if it negatively affects your advertising)

Then please do me the favour of listing the policies that Trudeau has offered as of late that will change things in the next election. I wasn't trying to bicker, I was merely stating a fact. Unless you can prove me wrong, which by all means I support!

Although Peter and I have disagreed in the past, through experience I agree with Peter's point regarding anonymity.

A few months ago I was confronted by multiple responses to post(s) all left by anonymous. It was impossible to discern whether they were all from the same person or multiple individuals. This experience left me frustrated and somewhat bullied.

In any case Anon: Oct 30, 17:35 why should Peter prove you to be incorrect? If you state a fact common sense should dictate you are able to verify your statement through corroborating evidence of cited writing etc...

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.